DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “21” and “22” have been used to designate both the first end and the second end in Fig.1, Fig.2 and Fig.4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an air suction mechanism” in claim 1, “a wind power distribution mechanism” in claim 3, “a fixed member for fixing” in claim 7, and “a fixed member for fixing” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin (CN 204048530 U).
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches a manicure dust suction device (Fig.1/2/3), including a housing (1) having a cavity (Fig.3) and a dust suction port (17) provided on the housing (1), wherein the dust suction port has a first end (Fig.3, end of dust suction port adjacent to numeral 14) and a second end (Fig.3, end of dust suction port adjacent to numeral 7), the first end is higher than the second end (Fig.3), the housing is further provided with an air suction mechanism (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a vortex fan to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Jin teaches a vortex fan, Fig.3, 3) for providing a suction force to the dust suction port so that the dust suction port is capable of collecting dust particles generated during nail polishing and nail removal (machine translation ¶11, note “dust collecting effect of the nail cleaner”).
Regarding claim 12, Jin further teaches the air suction mechanism includes a vortex fan (Fig.3, 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin.
Regarding claim 2, Jin further teaches the first end is connected to the second end (Fig.1/3), however, does not explicitly teach a connection between the first end and the second end is arranged in a circular arc, and the first end and the second end complement each other to form an “8” shape.
However, it is noted that applicant has not disclosed that having a connection between the first end and the second end is arranged in a circular arc, and the first end and the second end complement each other to form an “8” shape results in an unpredicted result not seen in the prior art and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a dust suction portion, as taught by Jin (Fig.1/3). Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence that a connection between the first end and the second end is arranged in a circular arc, and the first end and the second end complement each other to form an “8” shape is functionally significant, the limitations above constitute a matter of choice of changes in shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(b).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hsieh et al – hereafter Hsieh – (US 20230211269 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 12, however, does not explicitly teach a circuit board is further provided in the housing, the circuit board is located on the vortex fan, the circuit board is electrically connected to the vortex fan, and a gear adjustment key for adjusting an output power of the vortex fan is provided on the circuit board.
Hsieh teaches a dust collector apparatus (¶1; Fig.1-4), including a housing (11) and a suction fan (131). Hsieh further teaches a circuit board (132) provided in the housing, the circuit board is electrically connected to the fan (¶72), and a gear adjustment key (134) for adjusting an output power of the fan is provided on the circuit board (Fig.2A; ¶72, note that adjusting a wind speed of a fan inherently adjusts an output power of said fan); this configuration allows controlling the connection or the state of use of the fan (¶72).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the manicure dust suction device of Jin by having a circuit board is further provided in the housing, the circuit board is electrically connected to the vortex fan, and a gear adjustment key for adjusting an output power of the vortex fan is provided on the circuit board based on the teachings of Hsieh because this would allow controlling the connection or the state of use of the fan.
Furthermore, with respect to the circuit board being located on the vortex fan, it has been held that if shifting the position of a component in a device would not have modified the operation of said device, said position shift of said component is unpatentable, additionally, a particular placement of a component in a device has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In the current instance, there is no evidence that having the circuit board being located on the vortex fan instead of adjacent with respect to one another, would change the operation of the manicure dust suction device, therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the manicure dust suction device of Jin and Hsieh by shifting the position/placement of the circuit board being located on the vortex fan as an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art references disclose various configurations of dust suction devices: Tang et al (US 20220338690 A1), Sun (US 20250031829 A1), Won (KR 20220063920 A), Kiso (JP 2006034661 A), KR 20200001835 U, Kwon (KR 101763923 B1), and Henning (EP 1707071 A1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
The housing is provided with a wind power distribution mechanism (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a fixed cavity in the housing, an air suction port on a side wall of the fixed cavity, a wind power distribution network on the fixed cavity, a plurality of wind power distribution holes with diameters gradually decreasing from the first end toward the second end to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof) for distributing the suction force provided by the air suction mechanism so that a suction force at the first end is greater than a suction force at the second end (as in the context of claim 3).
The closest prior art reference (Jin) discloses a wind power distribution mechanism for distributing suction force provided by the air suction mechanism (Fig.1/3, inlet holes 6 and vent panel 17), however, does not disclose said wind power distribution mechanism includes the structural features needed to generate a suction force at the first end is greater than a suction force at the second end.
Hsieh also fails to disclose a wind power distribution mechanism includes the structural features needed to generate a suction force at the first end is greater than a suction force at the second end.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745